An organization, for example, a company (e.g., a television manufacturer) may manufacture a product for sale to a final customer. However, rather than making a direct sale to the final customer, the organization may use vendors (e.g., retail stores) to make the sale to the customer. That is, the organization may sell the product to the vendor, and the vendor, in turn, may sell the product to the final customer. Additionally, vendors may discover a sales opportunity (e.g., a client contacts the vendor requesting, e.g., a product) and submit a request, or bid, to purchase the product from the organization, so that the vendor may sell the product to the client. Often, there may be a plurality of vendors competing for the same sales opportunity. However, the organization may choose only some of the vendors, among the plurality of vendors, for the sales opportunity.
In deciding which vendors to use for the sales opportunity, e.g., to distribute a product to the final customers, an organization may use a bid process. A bid process may be open for a period of time, e.g., three months, in which vendors, competing for the same sales opportunity, may submit information in support of their bid. For example, a vendor may submit data indicating that they are capable of meeting a client's (e.g., a final customer's) requirements or needs. Additionally, a vendor may submit data reflective of successful past sales, or business development actions taken with a particular client.
Furthermore, when selling to a vendor, it is customary for the organization to give the vendor a discount (e.g., a wholesale price versus a retail price). The vendor may then sell the product to the final customer at a higher price (e.g., a retail price). Additionally, the organization may segment their pricing and have more than one discount price for selling the product to the vendor. More specifically, the organization may have different tiers of pricing. For example, the organization may have four tiers of pricing for their vendors, wherein “tier one” is the list price or retail price, “tier two” is an entitled price, e.g., a wholesale price, “tier three” is a better price than “tier two”, and “tier four” is the lowest possible price. Moreover, “tier two” may be the standard pricing given to vendors. However, vendors may request a better (special) price (e.g., “tier three” or “tier four” pricing) from the organization. For example, if a particular vendor has had great success in selling the product and has met sales goals, the organization may offer that particular vendor a better price. This is advantageous for the vendor, as they may pass the discount on to the final customer and possibly make a greater number of sales, or they may charge the same amount as other vendors (who purchased from the organization at a higher pricing tier) and realize greater profits.
Thus, during a bid process, an organization may decide which vendors will be used for the sales opportunity. Moreover, the organization may decide to offer different vendors different pricing tiers. These determined pricing tiers offered to different vendors may be available to those vendors for a limited period of time, e.g., three months, within which a vendor must close the deal with the client, and after which a vendor would need to complete the bid process again.
However, organizations (generally referred to as Company XYZ in this disclosure) often have a difficult time when selecting between competing vendors, such as: internal service providers, Global System Integrators (GSI), Local System Integrators (SI), Industry Solution Vendors (ISV), and other Business Partners (BP), to provide their products and services to the end customers. As an example, Bank 1 may be a Company XYZ technology customer and have relationships with Vendor A and Vendor B. When Bank 1 requires new technology, they may likely contact both Vendor A and Vendor B who are both resellers of Company XYZ technology products and services. In such cases where multiple vendors are interested in pursuing the technology sale to a client, e.g., Bank 1, Company XYZ must determine each vendor's eligibility and then evaluate each vendor's influence and contribution to a successful sale and deployment to determine if any vendor will be offered a special discount pricing.
It is important for organizations, e.g., Company XYZ, to maintain excellent relationships with all of their vendors, e.g., Vendor A and Vendor B, in order to maintain and grow business. In order to maintain excellent relationships with all of their vendors, each vendor must view the organization as a neutral evaluator of a standard process, and not an influencer of the competitive outcome. However, in deciding the terms of sale for each of the vendors, an organization may give one of the vendors more favorable terms (or less favorable terms) as compared to another vendor based on the organization's assessment of which vendor has best influenced and prepared for the sale and deployment to the client. For example, in some situations, an organization, e.g., Company XYZ, may provide different pricing to such competing vendors, e.g., Vendor A and Vendor B, based on which vendor(s) Company XYZ has determined to have best influenced and prepared for the sale and deployment.
However, without a standardized, well understood, and impartial mechanism for recording and evaluating vendor eligibility, influence, and preparedness with respect to any individual sales opportunity, vendor relationships with the organization may be harmed, where one or more vendors may not feel that an impartial decision has been made. For example, using conventional manual practices, two different representatives of Company XYZ may look at the same request for a particular vendor, but come to different conclusions, e.g., different pricing tiers.
Moreover, where a lack of defined evaluation criteria and data exists, it is often not possible for the organization to determine which vendor should receive favorable pricing or sales assistance. As such, a “no win” situation may arise where all competing vendors receive the same treatment from Company XYZ, as it is not clear that any single vendor has better prepared to perform than any other.
Accordingly, there exists a need in the art to overcome the deficiencies and limitations described hereinabove.